May 14, 2012

You may think you have a useful issue, and it is of some use, but here's the problem. Making same-sex marriage an important issue will give rise to the thought: If Obama loses, it will be because of the stand he took on same-sex marriage. That will cause some people – people in the middle who might go either way — to think:

I don't want to be a part of sending the message that if you support same-sex marriage, you will lose. I'm going to vote for him, not because he did anything that significant in finally getting around to evolving into the position, but because, now that he has, I don't want him punished for it. I'm afraid of how that will affect other politicians in other elections for who-knows-how-many years into the future. I wouldn't have been a single-issue voter on this, but now that it's been centralized as an issue, I don't want it to be remembered as the reason why Obama lost.

Think back to 2008. Why did people vote for Obama? You might suggest: People got too enthusiastic about the idea of the first black President and that kept them from looking deeply enough into whether Obama had sufficient experience or whether he was too far to the left. But another way of thinking about that is: At some point, people didn't want it to seem that what had happened was that Americans rejected him because he is black. They didn't want to be part of creating the message that if you are black, you will lose. I'm not saying that was rational. I'm talking about the emotional pull people feel, an urge that goes unexamined.

The issues in this election should have to do with economics, foreign policy, and the things that fall squarely within a President's responsibility. Obama has a record here, and he should have to defend it, not distract us with a "social" issue. His actual political policy on same-sex marriage isn't even different from Romney's: Leave it to the states. Leave it to the states is a fine — truly excellent — way to package the issue and set it to the side. I would encourage Republicans to do exactly that:

Marriage has long been a matter that belongs to states. Both Obama and Romney know that and know that it is not what the U.S. Presidency is about. They do not differ on the actual policy. It's good that Obama has expressed respect for federalism here. If only he would see the value of federalism more generally instead of continually enlarging the role of the federal government. Let's look at his record of growing federal government at the expense of state and local government and at the expense of private entrepreneurship....

168 comments:

After a couple of get-togethers this weekend with quite a few politically engaged types, I didn't hear from one, single person who thought this was a valid arrow to put in the quiver. Economy, economy, economy and jobs, jobs, jobs.

Well the good news for Republicans is they don't have to use it against Obama for it to be pervasive and effective.

The Newsweek cover, and all the other media toadying, is already getting the issue out there in people's faces every day. And besides, there isn't a single person in the US who cares about the issue and who doesn't already know what happened. Nobody needs an ad or a speech to remind them. I would love to be a fly on the wall in black barbershops and hair salons around the country right now.

Wow - the economy is still stuck in a ditch yet a voter would vote for Obama so he is not punished for his support of SSM? Did Meade have to untangle you after you got yourself into that twist of logic?

One of the advantages in nominating a guy like Romney is that he knows how to appeal to suburban moderates.

This is a pretty simple script:

"I personally believe that the institution of marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman. This position has already been endorsed by 30 states, and it was Mr. Clinton's position and Mr. Obama's position until about a week ago.

Where I agree with Mr. Obama is that these issues should be decided at the state level. I fully support the process by which the states of North Carolina and New York expressed their opinions on this matter.

I also endorse the efforts of most states to remove any unnecessary legal hurdles that gay couples experience in areas like probate and hospital visitation."

The politics of SSM, like the issue itself, probably runs better for Republicans at the state level on a state-by-state basis.

That said, I doubt there are many voters who are predisposed against Obama who would vote for him simply because of the message it would send about the electability of a national politician "coming out in support" of SSM. The issue would have to be quite central to the national campaign even to make that connection.

you ought to find a black church in Madison (*GIGGLE*) and deliver your message:

The pulpits of the nation's black churches took measure Sunday of President Obama's decision to support gay marriage, and the result was conflicted.

Some churches were silent on the issue. At others, pastors spoke against the president's decision Wednesday — but kindly of the man himself. A few blasted the president and his decision. A minority spoke in favor of the decision and expressed understanding of the president's change of heart.

Bishop Timothy Clark, head of the First Church of God, a large African-American church with a television ministry in Columbus, Ohio, was perhaps most typical. He felt compelled to address the president's comments at a Wednesday evening service and again Sunday morning. He was responding to an outpouring of calls, e-mails and text messages from members of his congregation after the president's remarks.

I'm going to vote for him, not because he did anything that significant in finally getting around to not lying any more about his position

FIFY.

I've got to wonder what it is, if not wishful thinking, that makes you believe Obama's professed support for federalism is any more sincere now than his professed opposition to SSM was then. How is it that the guy who had so much to say about Citizens United can't be bothered to raise any sort of public objection to Perry?

I agree Republicans shouldn't make this an issue, but this is weak: But another way of thinking about that is: At some point, people didn't want it to seem that what had happened was that Americans rejected him because he is black.

If Republicans or anyone else ever follows this device, then this country is doomed. This isn't elevated thinking. It is caving to peer pressure despite all other reasoning, because caving will appear cool and make you popular.

There will be enough traditional Dems who continue to vaguely support Obama at the union hall who change their vote in the booth...

It will be interesting to hear what Claire McCaskill, who's fighting for her career as a senator in nominally red Missouri, will say about this issue. If I were advising her, I would suggest she stay away from the issue, but the state-local media outlets won't let her do that.

Frank, an openly gay member of Congress, claimed that Blackburn was relying too heavily on talking points.

“I do know — George, I have to say and I — you know, this is a good political science lesson for people about what a political party’s talking points are,” Frank said. “My colleague, Ms. Blackburn, has been instructed to talk about the economics first.

Show of hands (or was there an Althouse poll on this already?): who here believes O. truly had a change of heart vs. determining that now was the right time to announce a long-held position, and that his prior announcements that he believed marriage should be reserved for opposite-sex couples was a matter of political expediency? Obama did not "evolve," he did not "flip-flop," he lied about his position because the truth would imperil him politically.

That said, do you really believe he's telling the truth when he says the definition of marriage should be left to the states? Of course not. He would cheer a Supreme Court decision compelling non-gay-marriage states to recognize gay marriages, but it's not politically expedient for him to champion the cause of federal gay marriage recognition, so he doesn't.

Knowing that he hides his position on one issue, aren't you a bit spooked wondering what else he's lying about, to be revealed in 2nd-term Executive Orders?

the republican party, mitt romney and the tea party should resist going on offense on gay marriage.

but that doesn't mean the Churches (catholic, protestant, LDS, Mosques, Synagogues) should stay quiet. If these religious institutions care about gay marriage, then then the catholic bishops, pastors and imams should be leading the fight against obama for promoting gay marriage.

It doesn't really matter if the Republicans make an issue out of Obama's SSM position or not.

If Obama looses in November, the media will endlessly push the meme that he lost because the United States is full of anti gay bigots. Count on it. If he wins it will be the polar opposite: His election will show that we are ready for national recognition of SSM.

I agree with other posters here that the national media will play up the president's views and it will on net cost him votes. The Republicans would be smart to just let the left self-destruct on its own.

I think Romney would be in the clear, except he signed the pledge with the National Organization for Marriage that calls for an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

"I agree with other posters here that the national media will play up the president's views and it will on net cost him votes. The Republicans would be smart to just let the left self-destruct on its own.”

Romney spoke of this just this last weekend. But this will be the last presidential election where this strategy yields a return. Very very soon this will be a wedge issue for Democrats. Then Republicans will have to choose between hostility towards gays...and winning elections.

that thirteen percent gap is a lot of votes even if it resolves down to a lot fewer actual vote shifts."

BUT, let's suppose that only 1 in ten of those 23% opposed to SSM feel strongly enough about it to base their voting choice on it.

AND, And that perhaps a quarter of the 10% who favor SSM feel strongly enough to base their voting choice on it.

IF that's the case then supporting SSM may be a net vote-getter. Which is to say, there's more to it than that 13% gap- intensity of support is also important.

Or perhaps the real issue is whether Obama and the compliant media can spin opposition to SSM into the equivalent of "hating" or "*phobic"-- that is, to marginalize opponents of SSM as latter-day Bull Connors?

This marginalization IMHO is the tar pit trap that Republicans should want to keep well clear of.

Except there is a ton of family law on the federal books. I contend that leaving it to the states is a cop out to avoid unwanted controversy. Tax law and federal benefits are going to be hugely impacted by an inclusion of another category of marriage eligible couples. There's a third rail that was in circulation briefly when DOMA was debated; the full faith and credit clause. Marriage enjoys the right. Therefore a state optng to ban same sex marriage (why did we stop saying homosexual marriage?) would find themselves at odds and most likely losing a full faith and credit challenge. There are three federal issues at stake. Two of which I mentioned already. The third one exascerbates the difficulties presented in the first two. Somebody draw me a line tied to the rationale used by the gay community for homosexual marriage to limit any other categorical combination. No one will go there. Its not a distraction. Its the elephant.Gay, homosexual or same sex marriage, whichever makes you comfy, are an invasion of socialist, redistributive disasters that are all too federal in consequence.

Third, Romney should, at no point, let Obama choose where the battles are fought. That will be, in fact, a very decisive indication of Romney's leadership potential. If Romney gets caught up in responding to the Obama campaigns desire to change the topic at each point, he will lose this election.

Paddy O said..."Third, Romney should, at no point, let Obama choose where the battles are fought. That will be, in fact, a very decisive indication of Romney's leadership potential. If Romney gets caught up in responding to the Obama campaigns desire to change the topic at each point, he will lose this election.

Nobody under 30 wants to be associated with Gay hatreds anymore. Obama's campaign has boldly drawn a contrast against Romney, the Mormon Elder's, presumed anti gay stance with Obama's "evolved" acceptance of gay civil unions being called marriages.

The states rights caveat is a true one, but no one cares about that if they percieve a chance to "send a message" when they vote in November.

The GOP needs to quit defending Wrong Positions. They seem to have understood the need to do that when they finally noticed that Afghanistan was unwinnable because of its terrain and that 10 more years of uselessly sending Americans in to be targets for slaughte was not good politics now.

If the GOP could say, "oops, we just had an ephany we were wrong on Afghanistan as was Obama," then why not just ease into civil unioned Gays being called married and move along.

How convenient to tell Republicans to run away and hide. How convenient to accuse Republicans of "using" same-sex marriage, rather than calling a "truce," when it is the Dems who keep bringing it up and who refuse to call a truce but instead have started a war.

Where is the "Why Democrats should resist using the same-sex marriage issue against Romney" advice/outrage?

But you are right in this sense -- same-sex marriage (or any other social issue) should not be used as a partisan pawn for crass political purposes in order to gain votes. Rather, marriage -- authentic marriage -- should be defended against attack on the merits because it is the right thing to do, because one of the gravest dangers that this nation and society and world face is the relativization of truth and the inevitable tyranny and despotism that follows.

"His actual political policy on same-sex marriage isn't even different from Romney's: Leave it to the states.”

I don’t think that’s true. If Obama favored leaving it up to the States he would either support the Defense of Marriage Act or substantively similar legislation. Instead he’s gone as far as to order the Department of Justice to stop defending the law from legal challenges. Based on his actual behavior, it seems more likely that Obama like so many other supporters of SSM actually favors having State courts impose it on States and using the federal courts to force other States to recognize them.

Romney needs to concentrate on this sort of thing: Report says 230,000 unemployed losing benefits over weekend. "All told, 409,300 long-term unemployed Americans in 27 states will have lost upward of 20 weeks of federal unemployment benefits by this past Saturday, even as the many state jobless rates remain high, according to a new analysis by the National Employment Law Project (NELP)."

What comes to mind to me is that these people will move from unemployed to not interested in working, in the labor statistics.

Point is though that the place that Romney needs to be hammering is the economy. The Dems make up a lot of bogus statistics on how it really isn't worse than the day Obama took office. But, the important thing there is that this recession has been far deeper and far longer than any that most of us have lived through. We really have to go back to the 1930s to find things as bad. And, a lot of what Obama and the Dems have done, has made it worse.

So, we find that heavy Dem backer JPMorgan Chase lost a couple billion in trading (President Obama's Wall Street problem), and John Corzine is still walking free, as the DoJ spends its resources investigating whether George Zimmerman committed a hate crime when killing Treyvon Martin in self defense. This article was from Politico, and so it mentions that: "Senior administration officials make a nuanced and largely credible case that they pushed for the toughest law they could get through Congress. They say the JPMorgan trades might not have happened if banks were not lobbying like crazy to water down financial reform", but not surprisingly fail to connect the dots to note that the reason that JPMorgan was able to exempt itself from much of the Dodd-Franks regulations was that it, along with Goldman Sachs, etc., was so much in bed with the Dems and Obama.

That said, howsomever, I think this thing may push some people who were asking themselves, "Can I afford another 4 years of this guy, the way I'm getting hammered?", if they were on the fence about staying home or voting Demo.

That's what Kerosene Maxine and the Black Caucus were worried about a couple of months ago, and now I'm betting they're even more worried.

Kchiker said...

Romney and the Republicans aren't making it a issue. Romney is talking about the economy.

Romney was at Liberty talking about this. He’s being forced to do so by social conservatives in the same way that he was forced to bench his gay national security spokesman.

Grenell was sidelined for other reasons - even the Establishment Media agreed they wanted him to stay.

And note the speech was made on a Sunday, out of the news cycle. This was more about making kissy face with the evangelicals than making same sex marriage a Republican issue.

The Demos have made it theirs, they can have it.

PS Time's going to do a Gay President cover, too, apparently, with the pillars of the White house all rainbow.

@Kevin: "Well the good news for Republicans is they don't have to use it against Obama for it to be pervasive and effective."Exactly. Leave the issue alone and concentrate on the economy. If it loses the president some voters, that's their business.

Honestly, he personally believes in SSM, but what is he doing to make it happen? He cancelled his trip to North Carolina where he had the chance to speak out against an amendment to the NC Constitution that now defines marriage as between one man and one woman.

I hope no one will be offended by my use of the tar baby image here, but it is the first thing that comes to mind (and I am old enough to still love all those Uncle Remus stories without a trace of guilt.) Anyway, Obama has constructed a tar baby here, which he is hoping to sucker Republicans into punching. I agree with Ann. The Republicans would be doubly foolish to get suckered into it in any way. First, the issue is not terribly popular and virtually no one wants it on the table now. So Republicans do not need to even express an opinion as people have their opinions and will focus them on Obama. Secondly, those who AGREE with Obama are going to be as critical of his action here as those who oppose him. So let him thrash his way free of his own tar baby while the public gets increasingly annoyed at the waste of time of it and at the fawning press cheering him on. SSM will be decided at the state level no matter what, as Obama himself accepts. I am fine with SSM, but I am also fine with letting the society make up its own mind. Halo or not, Obama's mind is not going to matter to them either way. But it will matter to those who think it should be otherwise occupied.

Romney should, at no point, let Obama choose where the battles are fought

You don't accomplish that by running away and refusing to engage. The Dems are not going to let him run away, they will pursue even harder seeing that he is afraid of the issue. Trying to ignore the matter will only encourage them all the more.

The way to put a stop to it is to engage the battle and hit the enemy hard. To stop a bully, you need to smash his nose in, not cower away.

My worry, and I think a lot more, as evidenced by this thread, worry that the Dems are throwing up social wedge issues as fast as they can to take the focus away from the economy. And, that too worried me. BUT, they are doing so almost six months before the election. What this may be indicating is that the Obama campaign people had a bunch of issues that they could bring out before the election, and they are using them now, instead of later.

With this "social issue of the week" thing going on, how long do you think until they run out of such wedge issues?

Some have suggested that the Obama campaign is mostly being run by a bunch of 20 somthings who got lucky last time around, those who were working then, and got someone into the White House who never really had to compete until now. His state level elections were greased, he got into the Senate by illegally getting the sealed divorce records of his two opponents published, and had the perfect storm in his favor in 2008.

I think that they figure that if they just raise enough money, that they can buy this election too. Remember, last time around, he decided not to take federal funding for the general election, but instead to turn off credit card validation in order to allow illegal contributions to roll in.

Maybe they can rewrite history. Their ads so far sure seem to be trying to do so. And, I expect to see this sort of thing 24/7 through the month of October. But, I would not be surprised if it did not work as well this time around.

"SSM will be decided at the state level no matter what, as Obama himself accepts”

Romney favors a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. As do most Republicans currently in office. Do you think that they would refuse an opportunity to move on this if they took the Senate and the Presidency?

Bruce said...Maybe they can rewrite history. Their ads so far sure seem to be trying to do so. And, I expect to see this sort of thing 24/7 through the month of October. But, I would not be surprised if it did not work as well this time around.

It only worked last time because of 2 social constructs that aren't there now.

- white racial guilt and the desire to vote for a black man, etc, etc

- the ability of people like Althouse to project their politcal desires and warm fuzzy vibes onto the blank canvas that was Obama. Now he has a real record of non-performance and bad decisions that can't be ignored

My worry, and I think a lot more, as evidenced by this thread, worry that the Dems are throwing up social wedge issues as fast as they can to take the focus away from the economy. And, that too worried me. BUT, they are doing so almost six months before the election. What this may be indicating is that the Obama campaign people had a bunch of issues that they could bring out before the election, and they are using them now, instead of later.

With this "social issue of the week" thing going on, how long do you think until they run out of such wedge issues?

The idea of running out of distractions was raised by Victor Davis Hanson. His was predicated on the idea that people will get as tired of it as they did of the "It's Dubya's fault" business, but the idea they're that desperate this early says their internal numbers are lousy.

I think that they figure that if they just raise enough money, that they can buy this election too. Remember, last time around, he decided not to take federal funding for the general election, but instead to turn off credit card validation in order to allow illegal contributions to roll in.

They were supposed to have a $1 Bil war chest this year and they're falling way short because Wall Street has abandoned them. I think it's one of the reasons they decided to turn this to advantage and hit up the Hollyweird crowd.

Just to keep the election interesting: Darrell Issa Keeps Pursuing Contempt: "Faced with an initially lukewarm reception from top GOP leaders, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is looking to build support for a draft contempt of Congress resolution for Attorney General Eric Holder regarding Issa’s investigation of the “Fast and Furious” gun-smuggling operation."

Part of the opposition to the House voting to find AG Holder in contempt is apparently the worry that this would take the focus off the economy. And, that it might alienate Black voters - which is why this post-racial presidency is so bogus. You have a corrupt Black AG, and he is supposedly, due to the color of his skin, above criticism and the law.

BTW - for those of you who haven't been following F&F, an American border agent was killed by illegally purchased guns whose sale was deliberately facilitated by the Holder DoJ. The Justice Department started the cover up that day, and Congress started investigating almost a year ago. They have hit a brick wall in terms of the DoJ responding to their subpoenas, and Holder has essentially declared that they won't get anything else of substance because this is an election year.

Maybe we should be concentrating on the economy, but I don't think that ignoring the rank stench of corruption in this Administration (esp. combined with the Dem controlled 111th Congress - see Dodd-Franks above).

"...The state/community will be a party to any marriage and therefore has every right to say which marriages it will recognize. The gay couples seeking recognition must make their case for community involvement in their relationship when the sine qua non condition of biological procreation does not exist and there are sufficient laws to deal with any children in a gay relationship. Until the argument for an expansion of government is made, the basic principle of limited government, the minimal amount of laws our society needs to function, should prevail."

"You don't accomplish that by running away and refusing to engage. The Dems are not going to let him run away, they will pursue even harder seeing that he is afraid of the issue. Trying to ignore the matter will only encourage them all the more."

If this were to be the Romney strategy through election day, then yes, I agree.

But another way of handling this is to let Obama and the Dems hector him on SSM, bait him on SSM, for months on end, through the summer, while he says nothing about SSM and the electorate learns that all Obama and the Democrats care about is SSM.

Then Romney affirms his focus on presidential issues; affirms his focus on jobs, the economy, federal spending, affirms his support for federalism, and then asks why Obama cares so much about SSM with so many Americans still unemployed, with the federal debt increasing $1 trillion annually, and with Obama utterly disregarding federalism except for SSM.

The Religious Right will not allow Romney to remain silent on this issue as someone already so aptly said.

My theory is that some action will occur before the election to take this out of the states hands, then the fight will be ratcheted up even more. If you are worried that this issue is getting too much attention now, just wait.

Obama knows that if he continues to allow this to remain in the hands of the states, he will lose support of Gay Americans. These people are not stupid, have been given hope and will be incredibly angered if Obama's support was only lip service.

What is going to lose this election for Republicans is what has been happening since 2010, when they took over the House and more so many state legislatures, they followed the direction that the Religious Right demanded of them, and they introduced hundreds of anti women anti abortion bills at the state level.

And independents and liberals NOTICED. It became increasingly clear that the focus was NOT on the economy by conservatives and instead was focused on social issues.

For conservatives now calling for focus to be brought back to the economy is "rich". They overplayed their hand on social issues early on and now everyone knows what they would do if they won the Presidency, the Senate and the House.

You can thank the Religious Right for the mess that Romney is in now. Does anyone think Romney will have the courage to remain silent on this issue if the RR demands he takes a stand? He needs their support, they are already suspicious of him because he is a Mormon.

Does anyone think for a minute that Democrats would have ignored this opportunity?

Obama knows that if he continues to allow this to remain in the hands of the states, he will lose support of Gay Americans. These people are not stupid, have been given hope and will be incredibly angered if Obama's support was only lip service.

Obama's support was only "lip service" as he has no plans to include his views in the DNC platform.

Romney favors a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. As do most Republicans currently in office. Do you think that they would refuse an opportunity to move on this if they took the Senate and the Presidency?

Sure they MIGHT move on it -- they might move on it for the purely political gimmick that it would be, just as all of the amendments they have put forward were voted on as pure gimmicks to fool people into thinking that they were actually doing anything.

The same sex marriage issue is not going to help Romney among white voters who have largely made up their minds about Obama.

However, what if Herman Cain were Mitt Romney's VP pick? What if Herman Cain spent a lot of time speaking at black churches who's pastors had already spoken out against Obama's stand on same sex marriage? What if Herman Cain didn't speak about same sex marriage at all but instead talked about how high unemployment is hurting the black community so badly. Cain could then throw in a humorous reference to him being the only black candidate in the race who had a black mother.

If Democrats don't get 90% of the black vote every time they are toast. If Herman Cain could swing 30% of the black vote to the Republican candidate, it would be a blow out in both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Standing on a stage, promising to fight for gay marriage, in the very state he did not do one thing to help fight off an anti-gay marriage law that passed the day before he decided to be pro-gay marriage.

Chip, Obama lost me a while back, but I think he sees an opportunity here to redeem himself, with a large voting block, women and gays. Next up the Latino vote, wait for some action there too. As someone upthread said, there are more issues he will act on before the election, there's plenty of time.

I think Romney would be in the clear, except he signed the pledge with the National Organization for Marriage that calls for an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.

At least Romney is trying to use the Constitutional process to make the will of the people law, as opposed to subvert the law using the Courts.

Ann is a liberal. My own position on gay marriage is to err on the side of freedom, I think Ann's positions are often socially derived. Liberals are herd animals and feel it is very important to be seen as part of the "cool" herd. That's why liberals first response to any argument can very often be "reject first! Ask rhetorical questions later!" What is asking a rhetorical question but soliciting the agreement of the like minded? Read Haidt's piece in edge.org about "Why People Vote Republican" for more on this.

You can also google "gaze cues" and "liberal" and "conservative" for more as to how conservatives think for themselves whereas liberals often take their cues from others. This is one of the reasons that liberals just don't value human freedom as highly as conservatives.

Chip, he will most likely win because of the support of gays, liberal and independent women, probably Latinos, certainly blacks, despite his stance on SS marriage and of course from liberal ideological voters.

Romney should say that it's more important for Gays to have jobs than legal status.

I see where you're coming from, but if I actually heard a presidential candidate say something like that I would get pissed for the gay community. Who is some politician to say what's more important for individual citizens en masse?

But that ceased to be true with social security and tax returns. Is Obama going to propose changes to both? How about simply pushing for same sex couples from those states authorizing marriage for them to file as married.

OR propose changes to the tax code nullifying the marital advantage and requiring everyone to file as single. (This is actually my preference.)

Wouldn’t surprise me in the least. The problem is, he also signed the National Organization for Marriage oath to "Support an amendment to the United State Constitution defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

he sees an opportunity here to redeem himself, with a large voting block, women and gays. Next up the Latino vote,

Good point there. A big demographic that he won last time around, and has lost ground with. Probably didn't help himself a lot there when he took the side of Black Trayvon Martin against Hispanic (and part black) George Zimmerman. And, neither the economy nor his stand on SSM are likely to help with this demographic.

So, what can Obama do? Fire OJ Holder for trying to persecute George Zimmerman? For helping to kill so many Mexicans with the Fast and Furious guns?

Only thing that I see is some sort of legal amnesty push. Immigration is probably a bit of why Holder is going after Sheriff Joe Arpaio right now with so much of his DoJ might. (Probably also doesn't like what Arapio's crew have dug up about Obama's past life either - or haven't been able to dig up because the records have been scrubbed or removed).

Point is that I think that it is inevitable that the Obama Administration do a lot more in the area of immigration. It isn't about getting him any more voters because the Dems expect to register all those illegals being legalized, because that just won't happen in time. But, rather, it is an issue that is unique to Hispanics, and he needs them far worse than he needs either Blacks (who are going to vote for him anyway) or Gays (because there aren't all that many of them, and a lot of them, surprisingly, will vote based on other issues, like the economy). Of course, if he goes after immigration, he will lose Arizona. But, the Dems were lying to themselves if they thought they actually had a chance there this year in the first place.

The problem is that we are almost to summer, and the SSM thing is getting played out. So, I predict something in this area this month.

Yes. We would see the Democrats, the media and all the cool kids in Hollywood conduct a smear campaign on Herman Cain that would be reminiscent of what they did to Sarah Palin. Due to human nature and the way some people react to political partisanship, there would be plenty of Democrats who would say unfortunate things that are way over the line with respect to Cain's race.

Well, actually, he isn't going against vultures, per se, but rather, against "vulture capitalists". Big ad by this weekend in a number of swing/battleground states. We will see how well this plays out.

Their contention seems to be that Romney heartlessly axed employees to fatten his own bottom line, and that of Bain Capital (and, never mind that the guy speaking lost his job 2 years after Romney left).

It is actually a pretty shrewd attack, given what they have going for them, which isn't a whole lot. It is emotional, and if you don't think it through, which Utopians and socialists invariably do not (as witnessed by the new French President's notice to American car companies that layoffs will not be tolerated) are dreamers. If they ever thought through their positions, they would abandon them as unworkable and disastrous. But, there are a lot of emotional, uninformed, and uninterested voters out there who may just be susceptible to this message.

Never mind that part of the reason that this country has been successful economically and in terms of job creation is what is called "creative destruction", which we have traditionally been better at then, say, the Europeans. Buggy (and buggy whip) workers were retrained to make cars. Farmers were retrained when their numbers dropped from most of our population to the single digits over the last two centuries. But, in both France and Japan, small, grossly inefficient, farmers are still being supported.

So, a lot of our steel now comes from elsewhere in the world. It is something called "competitive advantage". If every concentrates on what they do well at, and let other countries do what they do best at, all of them thrive. 30-40 years ago, our steel workers were considered the highest paid semi-skilled workers in the country (and, likely, the world). And, that didn't take into account union required work practices aimed at maintaining employment, and not profitability.

The capital that used to go into steel mills in this country, needed to be moved to industries where we have a competitive advantage, if this country is to thrive economically. Romney just helped this along a bit.

The GOP has, nationally, been treating it as a non-issue. Which is what they should do. It's not remotely important when compard to the other issues on the table.

It tends to be an electoral loser in most states as is. It's not going to help Obama much, except that the people who pay him to do what they want will be happy now that he has joined Cheney and a large swath of conservative thought on the issue.

"Yeah Romney would never feel the need to visit a university that teaches that he belongs to a cult. Absolutely no pandering there. No influence whatsoever."

Well, if Romney visits Notre Dame, Boston College or Georgetown, that would not be too far off from the official position.

One of the bits of fallout from the earlier "War Against Women" campaigns earlier this year is that even liberal Catholics now think that Obama hates the Catholic Church. Their response when asked about this is usually to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "La la la. I can't hear you. Shut up. You are mean to bring that subject up."

The president wants to talk about anything OTHER than the economy. Any diversion into any other issue will be simply helping Obama win. If someone asks Romney about same-sex marriage, he needs to answer that same sex couples are having trouble finding jobs.

Why Republicans should resist using the same-sex marriage issue against Obama: because they don't have to. SSM isn't popular with the populace. SSM bills get shot down faster than Bambi's mother whenever they appear on a state ballot.

If the Dems are shooting themselves in the foot regarding one issue, let them, and use your time and energy to focus on other issues.

I know this is anecdotal, but my mother who has always voted straight Democrat her entire life ("because they are for the little guy") told me this weekend she was becoming a Republican. My brother and I have been trying for the past three years to convince her that Obama is bad for the country because of his economic and foreign policy, but she wasn't buying it. The gay marriage thing did it for her. She isn't against gay people, and she would be OK with gay civil unions, but she doesn't think the state should redefine marriage. That was a step too far.

"- the ability of people like Althouse to project their politcal desires and warm fuzzy vibes onto the blank canvas that was Obama"

This time Ann appears to be projecting her own thinking onto the "faceless" middle.

Ann:

Rick Santorum, not Romney, sees gay marriage as a weapon, and Republicans have already chosen Romney, who clearly intends to run on the economy.. Contra your musings, however, the President clearly knows that other than getting gays to open their wallets, this particular wedge cuts against him. The list of states which have officially banned gay marriage is almost a match for the list of battleground states he needs to capture.

That's why he virtually ran away from NC (which he won by a mere 14,000 votes in 2008) on the eve of the Amendment 1 referendum, after Biden planted him squarely on the hot seat. Imagine the spin if he had endorsed gay marriage, only to be overwhelmingly rejected by black voters. He didn't offer up his modified, limited hangout till the next day: he was just expressing a personal, sympathetic, opinion; he was following the lead of a younger generation; real change is a state responsibility. Indeed, his strange new respect for federalism could almost be a simultaneous endorsement of the NC vote.

Obama & Romney may have ended up in the same policy position, but Romney has been making the federalist argument on whole litany of issues, while Obama has never made it before. Romney can hammer away at the economy and let Obama turn himself into a pretzel.

The Prez won't be thanking surrogates for keeping gay marriage on the front page any more than he thanked Joe Biden for putting it there.

The gay marriage thing did it for her. She isn't against gay people, and she would be OK with gay civil unions, but she doesn't think the state should redefine marriage. That was a step too far.

I suspect that a lot of people consciously or subconsciously see SSM for what it is: legislating the dictionary, something that Americans have never seen before except in the pages of 1984.

Words are symbols for ideas; therefore when people lecture others about the use of language they are really addressing the ideas behind the words. When people run to the government to change the common language, that can only be described as totalitarianism.

The government cannot name something it does not own; it does not own the ideas of the American population.

They're the same red herrings as the "fundies" the atheists go on about. They represent a small group of extremists who prattle on street corners about "the Bible" and "Christianity" while behaving like Saul's New Testament Pharisees.

They do not generally represent the religious or political values of very many Christians.

I've been a Christian conservative most of my life and I rarely meet a member of Allie's Religious Right.